Paper · 2013 · Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems

Isolation, identification and in vitro evaluation of endophytic actinomycetes against bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato

S. Sreeja

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The efficacy of endophytic actinomycetes was tested against bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato under in vitro. They were isolated from tomato plants collected from five different locations in Kerala (India) and their antagonistic effects against bacterial wilt pathogen was evaluated under in vitro conditions. All the isolates belonged to genus Streptomyces. Maximum inhibition (29.25%) of the pathogen was observed with Vellanikkara isolate (EAVK) which was on par with Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (22.59%) under in vitro conditions. The efficacy of culture filtrate of endophytic actinomycetes recorded maximum per cent inhibition (44.63%) of the pathogen with Cherumkuzhy isolate (EACK) which was on par with Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (42.59%). It was concluded from the study that the Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (Streptomyces sp.) was the most efficient among the endophytic actinomycetes isolates in the management of bacterial wilt pathogen under in vitro conditions.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All isolates of endophytic actinomycetes from tomato belonged to the genus Streptomyces.

Outcome
genus Streptomycese1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“against bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–119 · show in text ↑
e1

“All the isolates belonged to genus Streptomyces”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 310–357 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Vellanikkara isolate (EAVK) gave the maximum in vitro inhibition of the bacterial wilt pathogen, 29.25%, on par with the Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP).

Treatment
Vellanikkara isolate (EAVK)e2
Interactor
bacterial wilt pathogent0pathogen
Second interactor
Vellanikkara isolate (EAVK)e2biocontrol_agent
Outcome
inhibitione2
Direction
Maximume2
Value
29.25%e2
Comparator
Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP)e2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“against bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–119 · show in text ↑
e2

“Maximum inhibition (29.25%) of the pathogen was observed with Vellanikkara isolate (EAVK) which was on par with Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (22.59%) under in vitro conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 359–532 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Culture filtrate of endophytic actinomycetes from the Cherumkuzhy isolate (EACK) gave the maximum in vitro inhibition of the bacterial wilt pathogen, 44.63%, on par with the Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP).

Material
Cherumkuzhy isolate (EACK)e3
Treatment
culture filtrate of endophytic actinomycetese3
Interactor
bacterial wilt pathogent0pathogen
Second interactor
endophytic actinomycetese3biocontrol_agent
Outcome
per cent inhibitione3
Direction
maximume3
Value
44.63%e3
Comparator
Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP)e3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“against bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–119 · show in text ↑
e3

“The efficacy of culture filtrate of endophytic actinomycetes recorded maximum per cent inhibition (44.63%) of the pathogen with Cherumkuzhy isolate (EACK) which was on par with Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (42.59%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 534–746 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP), Streptomyces sp., was the most efficient endophytic actinomycetes isolate for managing the bacterial wilt pathogen in vitro.

Treatment
Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (Streptomyces sp.)e4
Interactor
bacterial wilt pathogent0pathogen
Second interactor
Streptomyces sp.Streptomyces sp.e4biocontrol_agent
Outcome
management of bacterial wilt pathogene4
Direction
most efficiente4
Comparator
endophytic actinomycetes isolatese4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Streptomyces sp.
Streptomyces sp. · Second interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“against bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–119 · show in text ↑
e4

“the Ozhalapathy isolate (EAOP) (Streptomyces sp.) was the most efficient among the endophytic actinomycetes isolates in the management of bacterial wilt pathogen under in vitro conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–972 · show in text ↑

Streptomyces · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

pathogen product · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

32 papers: 26 positive, 6 negative or no effect

25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.